[Poll] Reputation

[DeletedUser]

I have the highest post count and only 11 rep points, so you are wrong there.

You forget that offtopic doesn't count in postcount though. Where reputation still does. It does not make me wrong, I am right it still has a strong influence.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just positive reps
Members can give positive reputation points only


Then what would be the point???

 

[DeletedUser]

Just positive reps
Members can give positive reputation points only


Then what would be the point???

that way people only receive +reps when they deserve it and if someone states an opinion that someone else disagrees with they cant get a -rep

Therefore i think just having positive reps is the best option

 

[DeletedUser]

that way people only receive +reps when they deserve it and if someone states an opinion that someone else disagrees with they cant get a -rep

Therefore i think just having positive reps is the best option

See my post earlier in the thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think we should either have 'rep mods', introduce a reporting system, or just remove the rep system altogether. Just my two cents. I have had 4 neg reps and 4 greys that were all supposed to be positive, and none of the negs were for any real reason, and this just makes me look more n00by than I actually am :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

I think we should either have 'rep mods', introduce a reporting system, or just remove the rep system altogether. Just my two cents. I have had 4 neg reps and 4 greys that were all supposed to be positive, and none of the negs were for any real reason, and this just makes me look more n00by than I actually am :icon_wink:

Also mentioned twice before.

It must be a good idea

 

[DeletedUser54]

Really I think either Reputation should be a free-for-all thing but can only be given once daily after 14 days of being on the forums (to stop people making the accounts for the sake of taking away people's rep). Also give mods the power to ban use of Reputation like normally banning someone. It would work.

But in response to the situations:

• Don't change anything
  Keep it like it is now. Anonymus reputations are doing well. The system is fun!

I'm somewhat OK with this, but for some reason I can't (and I don't think many other can either) + or - rep right now, so what's the point :icon_neutral:

• Deactivate the reputations' system
  Kill the crap! Remove the reputation from this forums! They aren't adding anything of value to the forums. Needless stuff needs to be deactivated.

I'd say if we want to make things fair and not have endless + and - repping nor have something uber complicated this is the way to go. Really all you'll have is people saying 'oh you failz you haz low rep' when in fact its just been the flamer giving the 'fail person' a lot of bad rep :icon_rolleyes:

• Publish the "reppers"
  Publish the "reppers" for the repped user. Every user may see, who gave the latest plus or minus to his/her reputation in his control panel (where you acutally can see your latest reputation comments). Personally I see a lot of abuse here. Even more than right now. A lot of "community famous" members will get their fanbase to kill a member's reputation after receiving a single negative reputation vote.

The italics sum up what I think. Eventually it will turn into the equivelant of a school yard full of 7 year-olds saying 'oh you - repped me becuz u no like pokemanz' and then we'll have an army of the guys who like pokemanz - repping.
In TW terms, it will just encourage personal vendettas.

• Just positive reps
  Members can give positive reputation points only.

This is by far the worst option here. What's the point then?

From this list my #1 and #2 are best along with what I think would be good. If in the end we have such abuse I'd follow .net's lead and just rid ourselves of the system completely. Its like a new toy - at first its the talk of the town and all giggles and smiles then it becomes old and eventually it will come to the point where nobody cares about rep anymore because its an abused system.

 

[DeletedUser]

personally i think it should just be removed, i never actually use it and it's actually barely used by most.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think we should either have 'rep mods', introduce a reporting system, or just remove the rep system altogether. Just my two cents. I have had 4 neg reps and 4 greys that were all supposed to be positive, and none of the negs were for any real reason, and this just makes me look more n00by than I actually am :icon_wink:

We really couldn't introduce any rep mods as I think it is creating jobs which really aren't that necessary. I think it would be easier if you just mailed a mod on these forums in a specific format so they can have a look at it and remove it if it was necessary. No special job though. It doesn't make you look more noob that you have 4 - reps to your name because the icon below your join date still has the same icon as if you never got - reps in the first place.

 

[DeletedUser]

they are good in my oppinon, i have worked with them before and never had problems.
they show you wether what you posted was unfair, funny etc.
the only people who dislike it are the disgruntled "best forum personality"'s who find out that they're posts are a loada crap. :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Really I think either Reputation should be a free-for-all thing but can only be given once daily after 14 days of being on the forums (to stop people making the accounts for the sake of taking away people's rep). Also give mods the power to ban use of Reputation like normally banning someone. It would work.

I like the idea of having rep privs taken away.

However I dislike the idea of people getting rep to give every 24 hrs. Reason being, it means that if they have not given the rep to someone that they think deserves it in a day, they will not let it go to waste and will throw it randomly at someone.
My opinion would be to make rep valuable by only giving the ability to give rep to a person after they make so many, such as 10, valuable posts. Valuable posts would be, for example, posts that have a character count greater than 175. With such a high character counts, it means that only posts with actual content and not just opinions will count towards a givable rep. You cannot accumulate givable rep points, the most you can hold at one time in one, and after use, you require to post the ten valuable posts again before voting again. These are the type of people that deserve to make judgement on the rep/karma level of other users.

I understand that this would be a good bit of work required for the powers, but you prob could get this already made from another community who use karma. If ye cant, as fun as it is, I recommend just removing the system.

 

[DeletedUser54]

I like the idea of having rep privs taken away.

However I dislike the idea of people getting rep to give every 24 hrs. Reason being, it means that if they have not given the rep to someone that they think deserves it in a day, they will not let it go to waste and will throw it randomly at someone.
My opinion would be to make rep valuable by only giving the ability to give rep to a person after they make so many, such as 10, valuable posts. Valuable posts would be, for example, posts that have a character count greater than 175. With such a high character counts, it means that only posts with actual content and not just opinions will count towards a givable rep. You cannot accumulate givable rep points, the most you can hold at one time in one, and after use, you require to post the ten valuable posts again before voting again. These are the type of people that deserve to make judgement on the rep/karma level of other users.

I understand that this would be a good bit of work required for the powers, but you prob could get this already made from another community who use karma. If ye cant, as fun as it is, I recommend just removing the system.

The 24 hour thing is mainly flood control. If the mods could see people were giving - rep daily and the reason was 'riaef rawqf' or some stupid scribble they'd withdraw someone's rep privs. And what I meant is you can only + or - rep someone once daily. e.g. I + rep Player A. I cannot + or - rep Player A for the rest of the day, however I can + or - rep any other player.

And a character limit would be useless, I know for a fact people like me have a talent at just continuting to type and type and type and give a lecture on rep and everything and how on .net it didn't work and that rep is bad and other things.

I just did it there. I added extra characters. Its pretty easy. It would also be complicated to moderate. Here we're looking for simplicity, efficiency and the best way for it to work. I could have come up with some uber regulation system - though then it would become almost like the type of procedures you go through when entering and leaving the US by plane :lol: i.e. Complicated, stupid and annoying.

I say we begin trialling some systems. Really rep should be available from 14 days in as a privilege, so if it is abused (this would require at this stage just 1 person in their spare time to glance over someone's history every week) privilages can be revoked.

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]The discussion about moderated reputations will have to end. Sadly there's no possibility to grant moderators access to the reputations' system. That's only for admins. The only moderation being done for reputation is, when a member complains about inappropriate language in his reputation comments. Probably there's an add-on for moderated reputations, but that would be a change to the system, which would take a little longer to implement.

Also one cannot flood a member with reputations, because one will have to rep several different members, before one would be able to rep the member again.[/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

I think only positive rep is the way forward. I've been on forums with this feature before and the good, popular posters end up with loads of rep and the bad, inconsistent ones end up with only a little. It's easy to distinguish between good and bad posters in this way.

Of course there should be a feature that allows admin/ moderators to give negative rep for posts that break the forum rules, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

The 24 hour thing is mainly flood control. If the mods could see people were giving - rep daily and the reason was 'riaef rawqf' or some stupid scribble they'd withdraw someone's rep privs. And what I meant is you can only + or - rep someone once daily. e.g. I + rep Player A. I cannot + or - rep Player A for the rest of the day, however I can + or - rep any other player.

And a character limit would be useless, I know for a fact people like me have a talent at just continuting to type and type and type and give a lecture on rep and everything and how on .net it didn't work and that rep is bad and other things.

I just did it there. I added extra characters. Its pretty easy. It would also be complicated to moderate. Here we're looking for simplicity, efficiency and the best way for it to work. I could have come up with some uber regulation system - though then it would become almost like the type of procedures you go through when entering and leaving the US by plane :lol: i.e. Complicated, stupid and annoying.

I say we begin trialling some systems. Really rep should be available from 14 days in as a privilege, so if it is abused (this would require at this stage just 1 person in their spare time to glance over someone's history every week) privilages can be revoked.

The flood control may seem like a good idea, but what is to prevent someone with a grudge trading off a rep to someone else with a grudge against yet another person. To make it easy on me to explain, A hates B and C hates D. A neg reps B, C neg reps D. A contacts C and strikes a deal. C neg reps B in exchange for A neg reping D. Anyone with half a brain can work around a flood control very easily and in seconds. Now imagine it with a ring of ten people, chaos. As for the 'riaef rawqf', it can be replaced with something generic "No, your completely wrong there" or "Nice post...". And on top of that, they could constantly pos rep themselves while they are at it.

Yes, character limit is easy to work around, its not going to be flawless, but it does make things harder and might not be worth the effort. It also makes people who are posting for the rep ability more apparent, which leaves them open for neg rep themselves so there would be no need to moderate it. That is unless someone posts the word "filler" a thousand times to reach the char limit...

 

[DeletedUser]

I think only positive rep is the way forward. I've been on forums with this feature before and the good, popular posters end up with loads of rep and the bad, inconsistent ones end up with only a little. It's easy to distinguish between good and bad posters in this way.

Of course there should be a feature that allows admin/ moderators to give negative rep for posts that break the forum rules, etc.

I personally think this is the best idea suggested so far. (Although tbh, I don't really care what happens with regards to rep.)
The only problem there is with it, it'll just become another 'post count', like was said earlier. Whoever is on here for the longest period of time, and make more threads or posts than most, will generally get the highest reputation. Not just because they may be decent posters, but because they're just generally more active than average.

Oh yeah, and I think the admin/mod neg rep only is a bit opintless, seeing as we have infractions/warnings for rule breaking posts.

 

[DeletedUser]

It won't just become another post count because people tend to be repped for good posts and not pointless ones. On the other forum that I use with the system one user has nearly 14k posts and 1400 rep and another user has made 4k posts and has 61000 rep. The system does favour the more quality poster,

 

[DeletedUser54]

It won't just become another post count because people tend to be repped for good posts and not pointless ones. On the other forum that I use with the system one user has nearly 14k posts and 1400 rep and another user has made 4k posts and has 61000 rep. The system does favour the more quality poster,

No, it favours the most popular poster e.g. people like WFA and TjD would have sky-high reps.

[th]The discussion about moderated reputations will have to end. Sadly there's no possibility to grant moderators access to the reputations' system. That's only for admins. The only moderation being done for reputation is, when a member complains about inappropriate language in his reputation comments. Probably there's an add-on for moderated reputations, but that would be a change to the system, which would take a little longer to implement.

Also one cannot flood a member with reputations, because one will have to rep several different members, before one would be able to rep the member again.[/th]

The former will just have to be accepted really, however it is possible, provided the poster is willing to go to such lengths. He can just go around repping 50 people then - rep the next person. A waste of time, but if someone was determined they would do it. Flood control would just blanket ban and nothing more.

I think only positive rep is the way forward. I've been on forums with this feature before and the good, popular posters end up with loads of rep and the bad, inconsistent ones end up with only a little. It's easy to distinguish between good and bad posters in this way.

Of course there should be a feature that allows admin/ moderators to give negative rep for posts that break the forum rules, etc.

From this perspective rep is actually quite good, however - rep should just be abolished completely.

The flood control may seem like a good idea, but what is to prevent someone with a grudge trading off a rep to someone else with a grudge against yet another person. To make it easy on me to explain, A hates B and C hates D. A neg reps B, C neg reps D. A contacts C and strikes a deal. C neg reps B in exchange for A neg reping D. Anyone with half a brain can work around a flood control very easily and in seconds. Now imagine it with a ring of ten people, chaos. As for the 'riaef rawqf', it can be replaced with something generic "No, your completely wrong there" or "Nice post...". And on top of that, they could constantly pos rep themselves while they are at it.

Yes, character limit is easy to work around, its not going to be flawless, but it does make things harder and might not be worth the effort. It also makes people who are posting for the rep ability more apparent, which leaves them open for neg rep themselves so there would be no need to moderate it. That is unless someone posts the word "filler" a thousand times to reach the char limit...

Good point there, though generic responses would ideally not qualify as well. And if it was obvious that it were happening rep. privs would be revoked. Anyway, this part of the argument is rendered useless with Thargoran's statement.

On the 2nd point, that is exactly what could happen. People would just put elaboration and if someone used abbreviations they'd just iron all of those out. Its about quality, not quantanty.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think only positive rep is the way forward. I've been on forums with this feature before and the good, popular posters end up with loads of rep and the bad, inconsistent ones end up with only a little. It's easy to distinguish between good and bad posters in this way.

one day i was really annoyed at something so every post i had was (a tad) emo and evil icon_twisted

in one day i ended up with over 15 - reps :icon_cool:
i hold it proud but it didnt do much for me feeling better about myself.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just positive reps
Members can give positive reputation points only


Then what would be the point???

Going back on what I said earlier, I have changed my mind about no negative reps. Orangesurfer convinced me it was a much better idea.